Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Hillary's popular vote argument proves why she shouldn't have been President...

It's well known that the Clinton team made a specific effort to pad their popular vote total. They ran national advertising, they ran advertisement targeting Hispanic voters in lost cause states such as Texas and Arizona, and actually ran ads in California and New York, where there was literally no chance to lose.

The theory was two fold. They were actually somewhat worried about winning the electoral college vote, while loosing the popular vote. Otherwise, they felt that winning the popular vote by a larger margin would provide them with a larger "mandate" to govern the country moving forward. Both reasons, of course, assumed that they would win the electoral college, making both politically strategic moves (rather than electoral strategic).

So let's start with what we might want in a President. Considering the job is executive in general, you might want someone who understands how to hire the right people, and how to effectively manage those people. In fact, that's probably the "most" important quality for a President. It's amazing to me that she had a billion dollars to spend, but could not afford to find anyone who could offer her the advice that it was much more likely that she would win the popular vote and lose the electoral, than the other way around. I am a full time computer engineer, with two boys, and a small time blog that I run in my limited spare time, and even "I" understood that she needed to probably win nationally by at least two percent to win the electoral college:
It appears at this point that Clinton will probably need to maintain her two-four point polling lead nationally to win the Electoral college vote. On the flip side, it's fairly easy to see how a popular vote victory for Trump would likely secure an ECV win.
Secondly, with deficits growing into the trillions, it might be helpful to find someone who can effectively manage a budget, and make the most impact with the least amount of funds. I would offer that those who are good at budgeting are fundamentally be able to identify what is of value, and what isn't. Donald Trump spent less than twenty five million to win the nomination, effectively using free media to combat the large amount of money spent by others. He managed to spend less than half the money that Hillary did in the general election, by basically focusing on what was important (the battleground states).

Meanwhile, Clinton spent more money than any Presidential candidate in history, and managed to piss much of it away on building field offices, running advertising, and otherwise putting forward resources in areas of the country that were not in play. It was said that she spent more time and resources trying to win a single electoral college vote in Nebraska, than she did making sure she was going to win Wisconsin.

It would take serious effort "not" to conclude that Donald Trump made the most of his funding. He had a better strategy and was able to win in a very economical fashion. On the flip side, Hillary Clinton grossly mismanaged the most important endeavor in her life, and effectively wasted nearly a billion dollars in her loss.

So. when people on the left suggests that Hillary Clinton should be President because she won the popular vote. Quite the opposite. Had she better concentrated her efforts on winning the electoral college vote (the point of the contest) rather than focusing on things that are effectively irrelevant, she may have won. The fact that she didn't suggests overconfidence, lack of effective hiring, lack of strategy, and lack of budgeting her resources. All good reasons she would "not" have made an effective leader, and why she shouldn't have been President. 


Commonsense said...

I would make the point the her hubris and overweening confidence lead her and her people to make these stupid decisions.

Otherwise the analysis is spot on.

KansasDemocrat, Hillary got Schlonged said...

Yes, the analysis is spot on, can't win by insulting the voters that hold the very votes you want.

The recount, that horrid attack on the Electors only cemented why she sucks.

KD said...

The Economic Hope continues to put a lie to Obama's No-Hope-USA, the dark house will soon be re-opened under new Management one of a bright White Light.

"Tesla, Panasonic to make solar cells in Buffalo, New York

Associated Press December 27, 2016

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — Japanese electronics company Panasonic and U.S. electric car maker Tesla said Tuesday they plan to begin production of solar cells at a factory in Buffalo, New York.

The two companies said they finalized an agreement calling for Tokyo-based Panasonic to pay capital costs for the manufacturing. Palo Alto, California-based Tesla made a "long-term purchase commitment" to Panasonic."

Obama's No-Hope-USA, is quickly being Replaced by Trumps Made in USA.

Consumer Confidence in a new Trump USA soared most in 15 years.

Roger Amick said...

The typical Republican resistance to one man, one vote democracy.

Seig Heil

Roger Amick said...

Graham and McCain are going to go after your hero's BBF whether he wants it or not. She lost in large part, because of Trump's BFF.

And you fucking ignore it.

Roger Amick said...

She lost by 67,000 votes in three states. You think that's just hunky dory.

The Trump Tower is being evacuated.

caliphate4vr said...

Hey Roger

C.H. Truth said...

Calling Crazy, Party of one... Crazy, Party of one!

Myballs said...

She lost by more than 67,000 votes numb nuts.

KD, Bye Bye Obama said...

The typical Republican resistance to one man, one vote democracy.

Seig Heil "

I liked HB better as a fun drunk on BUSH SOARS then a sore loser and mean dry drunk, just my opinion.

HB= Hillary WON Election

Wonder why Trump won, look at HB. Case closed.

KD said...

She lost in large part, because of Trump's BFF. " The Mutt

Really, she had it all, that is what you told us, she had the WALL (play pink Floyd's song) She had the Money (you hate Citizen's United" and she Had Obama, lol, omg , this is fun making continual fun of HB .

KD, HB is drunk, i am sure of it said...

She lost by 67,000 votes in three states. You think that's just hunky dory. " The Mutt

Yes, to be a liberal is to be a hypocrite.

What IF she would have WON those states, IF she would have worked as hard as Trump, IF her economic Plan was as clear as Trumps and if she was not a hag with a hack , hack , hack.

But HB, we love you for your excuses, Biden said she did not know why she was running,,,,,, Obama said it was because she was see as being a toast eating elitist, for me it was calling Me A deplorable.

But HB you keep crying and wetting your diapers and looking for more reasons she lost.

Are you still blaming emails that were made public?

Loretta Russo said...

"She lost in large part, because of Trump's BFF."

There weren't any Russians in the voting booths here in Kansas...

Loretta Russo said...

"Seig Heil"

Now you're calling the Fathers Nazis?

You're sick.

Roger Amick said...

K'putz, I was at my 10:30 AM, AA meeting. I go two or three times a week. The guy who was supposed to be the Chairman. I got volunteered to be the Chairman. :-)

Believe it or not, I'm a very effective public speaker. They want me to chairman the Tuesday morning meeting from now on.

My voice fills the room. I've been active and I am finding it rewarding. Even when the others are sharing, they are looking at me, most of the time. Inc m I'm not shy, never was. But this has been surprisingly rewarding.

I'm at least as qualified than Trump, so I might run for the job!

rrb said...

so what you're saying is that you're the very best alky in a room full of alky's.

well good for you alky.

KD said...

Looking over the post by HB, he is right, she lost because she did not understand the rules of the Election, her goal was to get the most votes, nice.

Trump understood the rules , won by getting a landslide win in Electoral college votes , winning more states .

Obama no-hope-USA
Trump Made in the USA

KD, RRB on HB, the best drunk in the room said...

HB, bragging that you are better then distilled corn mash is nothing.

The truly strong are those that Served in the US Army like I did, or the blue uniform like I did or those that get up every morning go to their job, work and provide for their family.

Not some drunk that now is less of a drunk and brags about not being drunk.

KD, Liberals suck said...

ED Asner, a pro-Minimum wage liberal, right.

Unless the higher pay comes from him, then like all sick liberals the protect their profits over people.

"Balloting on the plan begins today, with an Equity Council vote slated for April 21.

The proposed change would require small theater companies to pay actors minimum wage for performances, a move that opponents say would result in the shuttering of many theater in the city that provide a crucial environment for young thespians to hone their skills while exploring a wide range of roles –even if they’re only being paid car fare."

Obama in 8 year talked about raising the minimum wage, but, never did the work to have it raised.

Roger Amick said...

Clinton Obsession Disorder.

"So. when people on the left suggests that Hillary Clinton should be President because she won the popular vote. Quite the opposite. Had she better concentrated her efforts on winning the electoral college vote (the point of the contest) rather than focusing on things that are effectively irrelevant, she may have won. The fact that she didn't suggests overconfidence, lack of effective hiring, lack of strategy, and lack of budgeting her resources. All good reasons she would "not" have made an effective leader, and why she shouldn't have been President."

"Obsessive-compulsive disorder is a mental disorder whose main symptoms include obsessions and compulsions, driving the person to engage in unwanted, often-times distress behaviors or thoughts. It is treatment through a combination of psychiatric medications and psychotherapy.

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) - Washing handsObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by recurrent and disturbing thoughts (called obsessions) and/or repetitive, ritualized behaviors that the person feels driven to perform (called compulsions). Obsessions can also take the form of intrusive images or unwanted impulses. The majority of people with OCD have both obsessions and compulsions, but a minority (about 20 percent) have obsessions alone or compulsions alone (about 10 percent).

The person with OCD usually tries to actively dismiss the obsessions or neutralize them by engaging in compulsions or avoiding situations that trigger them. In most cases, compulsions serve to alleviate anxiety. However, it is not uncommon for the compulsions themselves to cause anxiety — especially when they become very demanding.

Examples of Obsessions

Common types of obsessions include concerns with contamination (e.g., fear of dirt, germs or illness), safety/harm (e.g., being responsible for a fire), unwanted acts of aggression (e.g., unwanted impulse to harm a loved one), unacceptable sexual or religious thoughts (e.g., sacrilegious images of Christ) and the need for symmetry or exactness.

A hallmark of OCD is that the person recognizes that her thoughts or behaviors are senseless or excessive."

The patient will engage in repeated actions that the person caves in to the compulsion even though she knows it makes no sense.

Roger Amick said...

Why do people choose irrational racist beliefs to cope?

The signs of racism abuse may not always become apparent to close family members until the disease has taken a good hold on the individual abusing the internet. Racist Rodents typically hide their racism. It is true though that most close family members of severe racist rodents report to us in the pre-intervention process that when irresponsible, they become belligerent or bellicose, meaning “of warlike character; aggressively hostile”. This is not something that an intoxicated racist rodent is able to control. This feature of an racist rodent's personality is the hallmark symptom that his or her racism has gotten out of control and that the person no longer has control of the racist rodent behavior.

People choose racist rodentism to cope with life’s situations for two reasons: 1. Because the racist rodent gene was passed through to them via heredity; or 2. The person is trying to change the way he or she feels, possibly because of some underlying mental health condition whether properly diagnosed or not.

Roger Amick said...

Some people who were scammed by the Con Artist elect are already expressing regrets.

Black lung survivors who talk about just how impossible it was to receive benefits, ” ‘You couldn’t ever win back then,’ said Sue Toler, a coal miner’s widow in Huntsville, Tenn., of claims for black lung benefits. ‘It didn’t matter what kind of evidence you had.’ “ Phil Smith, a spokesperson for the United Coal Workers of America said it was “almost impossible . . . The vast majority of people were denied benefits. People would take these cases through the black lung court system and they would be denied because the companies could sow the shadow of a seed of a doubt.”

Stat News goes on to explain how the ACA changed things:

The Affordable Care Act changed that. Under “Miscellaneous Provisions” is a small section sponsored by a self-proclaimed “child of the Appalachian coalfields,” the late West Virginia Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.

The Byrd Amendments shifted the burden of proof from the miners onto the mining companies. If a miner has spent 15 years or more underground and can prove respiratory disability, then it is presumed to be black lung related to mine work, unless the company can prove otherwise.

“Often the person whose job it is to do the convincing loses,” said Evan Smith, a lawyer for the nonprofit Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center, who represents many miners affected by black lung. That change had a significant impact: In 2009, 19 percent of claims for black lung benefits were successful; in 2015, that percentage had jumped to 28.

And now, faced with the reality of Trump’s dangerous campaign rhetoric, at times at odds with itself, the coal miners of Appalachia are left wondering, “who really has my back?”

I think we all know who doesn’t. And unfortunately – in four years whether or not Trump scammed the hell out of them isn’t going to matter…

opie said...

Even where the popular vote means something, this story about voter fraud will just serve the R's to think even though all allegations were dismissed, voters still abuse the system. Oh well, trumph won in a landslide. LOL

Roger Amick said...

Labor Secretary Tom Perez says President-elect Donald Trump's transition team's inquiries into government agencies are against the law.

“Those questions have no place in a transition. That is illegal,” Perez, who is running for chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), told CBS Radio News in an exclusive interview Friday.

“Will dedicated career people be targeted because they were doing the right work?”

Earlier this month, Trump’s team asked the Energy Department for a list of employees who have been involved in climate change issues in President Obama’s administration, but the agency rejected the request.

The Trump transition team later told The Washington Post the letter was "not authorized," adding that the person behind it had been "properly counseled."

Last week, the transition team requested full reports from the State Department about “gender-related staffing, programming and funding.” The Washington Post reported that an agency official is worried the probe will lead to a “witch hunt.”

Perez said he doesn’t know of any similar requests made to his agency.

Nearly a dozen Democratic senators have called for an investigation into the Trump transition letter to the Energy Department. They told the independent Office of Special Counsel the letter appears to “have violated long-standing federal laws designed to protect civil servants against coercion for partisan purposes.”

Perez is running for DNC chairman as Democrats seek to rebuild from devastating losses in the November election.

He faces a tough challenge from Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who entered the race early and has scored a number of high-profile endorsements. Other candidates include South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Jaime Harrison, New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Raymond Buckley and Idaho Democratic Party executive director Sally Boynton Brown.

Trump has nominated Andy Puzder, CEO of a fast-food restaurant chain, to be the next secretary of Labor. The chain is Carl's Junior. They have been cited for violating minimum wage requirements in California

rrb said...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a new legal development on the controversy over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails, an appeals court on Tuesday reversed a lower court ruling and said two U.S. government agencies should have done more to recover the emails.

The ruling from Judge Stephen Williams, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, revives one of a number of legal challenges involving Clinton's handling of government emails when she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

rrb said...

alky, alky, alky...

links, you drunken sot. you need to include the links.

posting without attribution is theft.

rrb said...


even steny hoyer is telling lurch to shut the fuck up.

Roger Amick said...

KD, Kerry stabs The People of Isreal AGAIN said...

We are watching the voice of the left thru HB, beaten by corn mash.

Hillary WON, no changing that fact
Elizabeth Warren will be named to Hillary's Cabinet.
The DOW SOARED on news Hillary WON the Election.

Obama a failure of a president will make a peaceful transition of power to Hillary, IT will be a moment in time we will not soon forget.

Now, for the rest of us, we will continue to live in the real world, not in the WORLD where HB predictied Hillary wins Electoral vote by a score as much as 350 .

Aaron_in_OR said...

Have to say I agree with a lot of this. Hillary was trying to make a competence argument... but frankly there were not a lot of examples of competence from her. Her presidential campaign being one of them.

That said, I think the reason for her loss was that she did not fit the moment. Someone hip-deep in NAFTA and other trade agreements and the person most representative of the establishment that anyone could imagine was not going to win.

Maybe in another year... but in a year when non-establishment outsiders were winning the primaries and Bernie Sanders took her on toe-to-toe within her own party whose leaders put their finger on the scale? Heck no.

The story of this election in the future will be the inability of the Democrats to remove the plank from their own eye... they SHOULD have seen the Bernie Sanders phenomenon for what it was & reacted accordingly.

Roger Amick said...

Once again, who should never have been President?

Today was an epic day. John Kerry gave a 90 minute speech on Israel and the Palestinians, Donald Trump responded with two Tweets.

Early in the day, Trump tweeted that he was getting 0 help in the transition.
In his first, well not really, press conference, he said that he got a call from the President and it was very pleasant. His staff refused to discuss the contradiction.

He announced a few days ago that today, he would have a major speech on his plans for the economy. He gave a 90 second statement regarding 5,000 jobs that were returning to the United States. This was already part of the Carrier news conference.

Loretta Russo said...

Plagiarized spam.

Indy Voter said...

I wouldn't characterize Arizona and Texas as "lost causes" for Clinton until her campaign got hit in the face by a Comey shot less than two weeks before the election. Arizona was definitely in play (Trump had a rally there after Comey's announcement). The game plan, before Comey, was to push hard in red states and try to run up the score in the Electoral College.

I've seen nothing indicating Clinton was investing resources in Texas after the Comey shot, BTW. Her campaign was basically focused on battleground states the last two weeks (Iowa and Ohio being exceptions), but inexicably ignored Michigan and Wisconsin.

The Comey shot was the coup de grace on her campaign, which made many bad mistakes like overlooking Wisconsin and Michigan, or the one I harped on repeatedly: not giving voters a reason to vote FOR her instead of just voting against Trump. Given that it was so close, she would have won without Comet's interference, and may well have won anyway if she hadn't made other mistakes in her campaign. And, given that the alternative was Trump, she should have been elected. God help us all with Trump in the Oval Office.

Roger Amick said...

Sorry Twit, that's me, myself and a working mind.

Roger Amick said...

This is pretty good. I might have it.

The country is in the throes of a major epidemic, with no known cure and some pretty scary symptoms. It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome, or TDS, and it’s rapidly spreading from the point of origin – the political class – to the population at large.

In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The president-elect’s every tweet provokes a firestorm, as if 140 characters were all it took to change the world.

Trump set up a single phone call with Taiwan’s president, and suddenly TDS patients were insisting that our “One China” policy was no more. But the reality is that telephonic communication isn’t the same thing as official diplomatic recognition. Besides, in their eagerness to highlight Trump’s alleged recklessness, the president-elect’s critics misunderstand our policy. “One China” means that we don’t recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country or China’s sovereignty over Taiwan. We’ve never considered Taiwan a mere province, and the Taiwan Relations Act obligates us to defend the island against attack.

In the advanced stages of the disease, the afflicted lose touch with reality. Opinion is unmoored from fact.
The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim’s vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting solely of hyperbole. Politico recently ran a piece that noted Trump’s supposedly unprecedented decision to continue using his private security force, which provoked former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin to tweet: “A predictable move for a kleptocratic authoritarian who wants to operate outside the bounds of law and basic ethical standards. Even more troubling, he may use the force's lack of government oversight & presidential veneer to carry-out extralegal acts of force.”

It’s quite a stretch to suggest that a desire to keep trusted lieutenants is actually a sinister plot to create a version of the brownshirts, but such illogical leaps are the pathway to the next stage of TDS: a state of constant hysteria.

Especially when discussing Trump’s views on immigration, hysterical TDS victims assume there’s no difference between the president-elect’s rhetoric (get out!) and his proposed policy (deporting known criminals who are in this country illegally). As Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, put it: “He’s not calling for mass deportation. He said, ‘No, only people who have committed crimes.’ And then only until all of that is taken care of will we look at what we are going to do next.”

As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. Despite Trump’s expressed desire to “work something out” for the so-called Dreamers – those brought here as very young children – Trump’s critics continue to harp on this issue. Immigration advocate Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, who has a very bad case of TDS, inadvertently revealed this mind set when he said: “Before anyone falls into the trap of believing that Trump is ‘softening’ on immigration, they should remember that we’ve seen this movie before.”

A movie, eh?

Roger Amick said...

In the advanced stages of the disease, the afflicted lose touch with reality. Opinion is unmoored from fact. Life resembles a dark fairy tale in which the villain – Trump – is an amalgam of all the worst tyrants in history, past and present, while the heroes –Trump’s critics – are akin to the resistance fighters of World War II.

TDS victims routinely compare Trump to Hitler: Time magazine ran an opinion piece that asked “Just how similar is Donald Trump to Hitler?” The answer: “The comparison between Hitler and Trump is so poignant” because “both men represent their personal character as the antidote to all social and political problems.”

Since Hitler has been dead for more than 70 years, though, victims may feel the need for a more potent bogeyman, a tyrant with more currency. And they’ve found one in Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom they insist ordered a hacking campaign to help Trump win the election.

The other day, Tucker Carlson of Fox News interviewed TDS-riddled Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank). Carlson asked for evidence that Putin’s alleged machinations had any effect on the election. Unable to come up with a coherent answer, Schiff morphed into J. Edgar Hoover: “You're carrying water for the Kremlin,” he said, “you're going to have to move your show to ‘Russia Today.’”

If you ask a TDS victim what might help them feel better, they’ll use the word “normalize.” As in, we mustn’t “normalize” Trump. What they’re really saying is that normal means of dealing with him aren’t enough. Which raises the question: If he’s another Hitler, if he’s in league with Putin, then why is assassination out of the question? Poke a TDS victim and you’ll find they don’t think that “solution” is out of the question at all.

This is the final stage of the TDS epidemic: violence against a democratically elected leader. Unless a cure for TDS is found, this is where we are headed.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of and the author of “Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement.”

Indy Voter said...

And you're making your case to be designated as Patient Zero, yes?

Roger Amick said...

No. LOL.

I've often called CH as a victim of COD. So when I saw that, and had fun.

PNC said...

With deficits growing into the trillions...

...the Republicans support a man who has a multi-trillion dollar spending agenda.